License to Kill

[lildog]

Free Market News Network has an audio interview about this subject:

http://www.freemarketnews.com/portfolio/index.php

Click on:
LONDON POLICE SHOOTING
An innocent man was shot to death because police thought he might be a terrorist. FMNN Legal Analyst Craig McCarthy raises a concern.

No sound card here    I'll have to listen to it later.

[AlanM]

I understand why police need guns, although it is unusual in Britian.? I think the guy with the gun was callled as back-up which, as we know, in the US would be a SWAT team with a cannon.
I also understand why they would have shot him so effectivly, so he could not detonate a device. This is if, in reality,? he had a puffy jacket and ran and did not stop when asked to.? In other words, if he met the discription of a potential bomber. I think he was within his rights not to stop, but, stupid for not doing so.
I just think there should be accountability.? If he was wearing a denim jacket and did not meet the discription of a potential bomber, someone should go to the Gaol for murder.

Accountability goes both ways and it all comes down to what a reasonable police officer would believe in that split instance.? And without actually being there, seeing the guys appearance (I saw a couple reports claim he had wires sticking out from his jacket, which could have been headphones or could have been wires from a bomb for instance), seeing how he actually reacted, and knowing the surrounding details such as the fact there had been two bombings in the past few days in the underground?? we can only speculate on what facts we do know and what information we do have.? And from what I?ve heard and read so far I believe most cops with reasonable judgment would have shot him and they would all have been right for doing so.

But this brings us back to the first part of what you posted? how exactly is it within someone?s right not to stop for the police?? You don?t know who the police are searching for or the situation leading up to their asking you to freeze (unless you are the suspect they are searching for).? You have to assume they are searching for someone armed and dangerous any time they ask you to freeze? if your innocent you should have nothing to worry about.? And if you put yourself in their shoes (assuming they are looking for someone armed and dangerous) it?s not unreasonable to suspect they WILL shoot you if you make quick sudden moves? it is NOT in the cops best interest to wait to see you actually pull a gun out and point it at them as by that point they will be the ones getting killed.

It all comes down to whether the police have the right to use deadly force to stop anyone they SUSPECT of POSSIBLY being about to commit a crime. In this instance no actual crime was committed against anyone, save for the failure to stop for the police. If you believe all rights can be thrown out in the process of preventing a possible crime, then we will have a brutal dictatorship, all in the name of Security.

[lildog]

It all comes down to whether the police have the right to use deadly force to stop anyone they SUSPECT of POSSIBLY being about to commit a crime. In this instance no actual crime was committed against anyone, save for the failure to stop for the police. If you believe all rights can be thrown out in the process of preventing a possible crime, then we will have a brutal dictatorship, all in the name of Security.

You aren?t looking at it the same way I am? it?s not suspect of committing a crime.  If that were the case cops could blow the heads off kids trying to pocket a pack of baseball cards.  I think everyone would agree that a cop doing that would be in the wrong.

No, what I?m saying is cops should be free to use deadly force in situations where they believe their own or other civilians lives are in danger.  Then and ONLY then is deadly force justified.

In the case were are discussing there were TWO bombings just days apart.  Suspects were still at large.  Police were looking for people they knew would be willing to take their own lives while killing others.

Based on that it?s reasonable to believe that a suspect would be dangerous.

Do you honestly believe that it was that unreasonable after two bombings and everything else we?ve seen terrorists do, that a suspect wouldn?t be willing to just flick a switch or push a button and blow everyone including the police up?

And here we have a suspect who based on all circumstances was viewed as dangerous who not only refused to cooperate with the police but RAN from the police.  I?m sorry but if you want to act like an idiot while police are on the look out for dangerous terrorists who are willing to blow themselves up they have every right to blow your fool head clean off.

[AlanM]

   Benjamin Franklin:   Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

It is at times of greatest Insecurity, that we must guard our Freedoms, or risk losing them.

[lildog]

? ?Benjamin Franklin:? ?Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

It is at times of greatest Insecurity, that we must guard our Freedoms, or risk losing them.

Would the cop's life be HIS liberty and freedom???

Remember your freedoms end when they start endangering my own.  You have the freedom to swing your first but you do NOT have the freedom to swing your fist into my face... that would be assult.

You seem to ignore the fact cops are citizens too and they too have freedoms and liberties.  They have the right to protect themselves from danger just as you can and should be free to protect yourself from danger.

[Kat Kanning]

No one is forced to work as a cop.

[mvpel]

Unless you feel that there should be no police at all, you have to grant them certain parameters for use of force, since that's what they are charged with doing - exercising force on behalf of the lawful government of our society.

And the parameters come down to something called "articulable suspicion."

Let's review the details here:

• The individual emerges from a house under surveillance for suspected perpetrators of deadly bombings and attempted bombings which took place a few days earlier.
• The individual's appearance generally fits that of some of the suspected perpetrators.
• The individual is wearing, as described by the police and eye-witnesses, an unseasonably bulky coat.
• Suicide bombers in Israel typically use vest-based explosives concealed under their clothing.
• When commanded to stop by a group of plainclothes and uniformed police, the individual dashes away towards the tube station.
• He continues fleeing, despite repeated calls to stop by identified police, down into the tube station, leaping over the turnstile and running for a train like the ones that had been bombed a few days before.
• He struggles when he's tackled.
• Detonation of a bomb requires a quarter-inch movement of one thumb.

So, at exactly what point during this situation do you think the police could reasonably have drawn the conclusion that this guy was not actually a suicide bomber, but rather an illegal immigrant, based on the information they had at the time?

Are you folks seriously arguing that someone suspected of a crime has a right to run away from the police?

[Kat Kanning]

Yes, I believe there should be no government, no institutionalized use of force, and therefore no police as we currently have them.

[BlueLu]

To me, having police is important and desirable, but they should not enjoy the privileges that "police as we currently have them" actually do enjoy.  Police should have the same rights and responsibilities as any others of our neighbors.  The difference is that they are hired to do a job of investigating crime, enforcing law, directing traffic, etc.  The rest of us protect ourselves, our families, and our neighbors as a sideline to our other occupations.

I am not weighing in on whether the police in question should be charged, but what is stated above should be the standard for police and non-police alike:  Would any other vigilant citizen be charged with a crime for doing the same thing? 

Should there be a grand-jury to decide?  Probably so.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Yes, I believe there should be no government, no institutionalized use of force, and therefore no police as we currently have them.

In the absence of government the subway would be privately owned and would have privite security. In order to buy a ticket one would have to agree to compliance with these security guards.

[Michael Fisher]

In a free society, there will be force deployed for security purposes in countless situations, but ideally there will be no group with a monopoly of force over a geographic area they do not own as a result of voluntary transactions.

Yeah, that's a difficult goal.  But why not aim high!? 

[Ron Helwig]

Unless you feel that there should be no police at all, you have to grant them certain parameters for use of force, since that's what they are charged with doing - exercising force on behalf of the lawful government of our society.

And the parameters come down to something called "articulable suspicion."

Let's review the details here:

• Detonation of a bomb requires a quarter-inch movement of one thumb.

So, at exactly what point during this situation do you think the police could reasonably have drawn the conclusion that this guy was not actually a suicide bomber

Well, he sure went to an awful lot of trouble running away when all he had to do was move his thumb.

The fact that he didn't explode right away should have been proof enough that he wasn't reasonably to be suspected of being an active suicide bomber.

And yes, I expect the police to risk their lives to protect the public.

[mvpel]

Well, certainly a reasonable person might guess that he wanted to maximize carnage and disruption by blowing a subway train, rather than a street corner, in light of the events of the previous few days.  How long did it take for King's Cross to reopen?

Kat, since we're proceeding from entirely different premises I don't think it'll be fruitful to argue this point further.

[Kat Kanning]

http://www.itn.co.uk/news/1677571.html

Mistakes led to tube shooting
11.05PM, Tue Aug 16 2005

ITV News has obtained secret documents and photographs that detail why police shot Jean Charles De Menezes dead on the tube.

The Brazilian electrician was killed on 22 July, the day after the series of failed bombings on the tube and bus network.

The crucial mistake that ultimately led to his death was made at 9.30am when Jean Charles left his flat in Scotia Road, South London.

Surveillance officers wrongly believed he could have been Hussain Osman, one of the prime suspects, or another terrorist suspect.

By 10am that morning, elite firearms officers were provided with what they describe as "positive identification" and shot De Menezes eight times in the head and upper body.

The documents and photographs confirm that Jean Charles was not carrying any bags, and was wearing a denim jacket, not a bulky winter coat, as had previously been claimed.

He was behaving normally, and did not vault the barriers, even stopping to pick up a free newspaper.

He started running when we saw a tube at the platform. Police had agreed they would shoot a suspect if he ran.

A document describes CCTV footage, which shows Mr de Menezes entered Stockwell station at a "normal walking pace" and descended slowly on an escalator.

The document said: "At some point near the bottom he is seen to run across the concourse and enter the carriage before sitting in an available seat.

"Almost simultaneously armed officers were provided with positive identification."

A member of the surveillance team is quoted in the report. He said: "I heard shouting which included the word `police' and turned to face the male in the denim jacket.

"He immediately stood up and advanced towards me and the CO19 officers. I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso, pinning his arms to his side.

"I then pushed him back on to the seat where he had been previously sitting. I then heard a gun shot very close to my left ear and was dragged away onto the floor of the carriage."

The report also said a post mortem examination showed Mr de Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder, but three other bullets missed, with the casings left lying in the tube carriage.

Police have declined to comment while the mistaken killing is still being investigated.

[lildog]

What that article doesn?t address is why the first officer who shot did so.  And that?s the important question here?

If the first shot was valid then this would be a good shooting.  If it wasn?t valid then the cop who shot that first shot is the one at fault here.

This is also why we have investigations into matters like this? and sometimes new information can drastically change whether something was in the right or wrong.  For instance, if the officer in the article had this man restrained then I would have a very hard time seeing what could have justified their shooting him.